Who are you voting for?
- Thread starter Haulin Oates
- Start date
No, no... No war here! I figure this is the most well-rounded group of friends that can debate something like this, so I want honest opinions! Please, please keep it a spirited debate, back up your arguments, and as always, respect others, but I really am torn this time... I have historically voted Democratic, but I find myself having serious republican tendencies lately!
Obama,
I'll tell you why,
1) I believe that the president is the scape goat, or the face for the much larger problem, congress!
2) we know what we get with Obama, I don't trust mitt Romney. I personally believe in church and government separation. I don't feel Romney is capable of that.
3) don't get me wrong I don't much care for Obama but again at least we know where the snake in the grass is and what it looks like
4) also consider that I don't like the direction of this country and I believe I can live better abroad. Some will disagree with that and that's ok.
But you asked and that's my .02
I'll tell you why,
1) I believe that the president is the scape goat, or the face for the much larger problem, congress!
2) we know what we get with Obama, I don't trust mitt Romney. I personally believe in church and government separation. I don't feel Romney is capable of that.
3) don't get me wrong I don't much care for Obama but again at least we know where the snake in the grass is and what it looks like
4) also consider that I don't like the direction of this country and I believe I can live better abroad. Some will disagree with that and that's ok.
But you asked and that's my .02
Gary Johnson... Interesting! But WHY? I googled him, seems like a good candidate, however, I feel if I don't vote dem. or rep. I'm just throwing my vote away.
I like your points Mike! One of my rationales for voting Romney is he is in favor of limiting "big" government though, which I like. He has stated that he will leave a lot of decisions to the state level. But I am also very fearful of his religious backing, as I completely agree with you that religion has no place in Washington.
I like your points Mike! One of my rationales for voting Romney is he is in favor of limiting "big" government though, which I like. He has stated that he will leave a lot of decisions to the state level. But I am also very fearful of his religious backing, as I completely agree with you that religion has no place in Washington.
The problem is that too many people feel this way, and both parties make an effort to reinforce that sentiment during the election season. Sadly, the Commission on Presidential Debates decides who gets to be on stage in front of the nation...and they too are in the pockets of the same people that dump millions of dollars into the campaigns. As a result, people are usually left to feel like they only have 2 choices and rarely get to hear from a 3rd party candidate.
My take on the 2012 elections, since you asked: I feel like the 2 party system is broken...too much partisan bickering and too many elected officials take either far left or far right stances to separate themselves along party lines. As a result, nothing gets accomplished...just look at the stalemate between the Congress and the President over the past 2 years.
I'm a registered independent, have voted both Republican and Democrat in the past, but will be voting 3rd party this year. Where some see it as a wasted vote...I see it as making a statement and supporting a candidate that I would truly WANT in office. I see no reason to force myself to select between the "lesser of two evils", as so many like to say.
Some people are fine with the 2 parties running the show, and that's fine. But for anybody else that can't decide which candidate they dislike the least...I think it's time to toss away that sentiment of wasting a vote and elect whoever you want without feeling like you need to be a sheep in one pasture vs the other. I'll get off my soapbox now, lol.
All that being said, I'm voting for Jill Stein. The Green Party has actually laid out detailed, feasible policy changes that I can agree with 100%. I definitely can't say that about Romney, and although I don't feel like Obama has done a bad job, IMO he hasn't pushed enough for diplomacy in foreign affairs...which is what he promised prior to the 2008 elections.
My take on the 2012 elections, since you asked: I feel like the 2 party system is broken...too much partisan bickering and too many elected officials take either far left or far right stances to separate themselves along party lines. As a result, nothing gets accomplished...just look at the stalemate between the Congress and the President over the past 2 years.
I'm a registered independent, have voted both Republican and Democrat in the past, but will be voting 3rd party this year. Where some see it as a wasted vote...I see it as making a statement and supporting a candidate that I would truly WANT in office. I see no reason to force myself to select between the "lesser of two evils", as so many like to say.
Some people are fine with the 2 parties running the show, and that's fine. But for anybody else that can't decide which candidate they dislike the least...I think it's time to toss away that sentiment of wasting a vote and elect whoever you want without feeling like you need to be a sheep in one pasture vs the other. I'll get off my soapbox now, lol.
All that being said, I'm voting for Jill Stein. The Green Party has actually laid out detailed, feasible policy changes that I can agree with 100%. I definitely can't say that about Romney, and although I don't feel like Obama has done a bad job, IMO he hasn't pushed enough for diplomacy in foreign affairs...which is what he promised prior to the 2008 elections.
Obama....
because he already has his foot in the door and has started a lot of stuff that needs another 4 to finish. Romney will just **** it all up. Also, im not a big fan of Romney and his religious views. I served this country in hopes that everyone within it can have their own "pursuit of happiness". I vowed to protect my peoples rights. Romney wants to take them away. His stance on NRA also concerns me..... I dont know which side he is on.
because he already has his foot in the door and has started a lot of stuff that needs another 4 to finish. Romney will just **** it all up. Also, im not a big fan of Romney and his religious views. I served this country in hopes that everyone within it can have their own "pursuit of happiness". I vowed to protect my peoples rights. Romney wants to take them away. His stance on NRA also concerns me..... I dont know which side he is on.
jahmic;193279 said:
We share that sentiment.
btw, I like your use of the word "yet".
btw, I like your use of the word "yet".
I am down sizing my life like mad at this point there will be an economic break down ( IMO soon next 3 to 6 years). I am Not a dooms day guy just a person that looks around.
Citys,counties, and states are going bankrupt , would it not make since that the country is next? Oh man I should not start but if anyone thinks the problems with this country are about abortion,womens rights, education or even Obama care, man..........we are in trouble :distrust:
I'll bite....hopefully I don't get started either Mike!
Unfortunately, I'm more in the "lesser of two evils" camp. I'll be voting for Romney. Normally I am completely ideal/principle driven, and would vote for an "unknown" that I believe in (Ron Paul or the like). However, I cannot allow my vote to not "count" in this election, when Obama is not only allowing, but is pushing for the fabric of this country to be torn apart. HUGE government is not the right thing, and is nothing that this country was founded or created for, quite the opposite!! We are eerily creeping toward's socialism or possibly worse, very fast with this administration and idealogy. Re-distribution of wealth with BIG government at the helm is a philosophy that we have fought, spilling American blood to defend against. AKA, socialism, communism, fascism.
The disenfranchised in this country are hands down the middle class. The welfare/hand-out/entitlement population is exponentially growing and sapping this country of all it was built on and all of it's resources. There is absolutely a breaking point upon which the middle class/working America will not be able to support all the BIG government welfare. I see it first hand everyday, the waves of people that are completely content and more than willing to live off the middle class when they can sit around and collect all the handouts in the world. Add to that the enormous bills that are created within the healthcare system by those same people...HELL, I'm starting to wonder why I work?!? There is definitively a breaking point at which the increased taxation, that is completely inevitable to maintain these "welfare" levels, will break the middle-classes back. I completely agree with Mike (majicmike) that in 3-6 years we are going to see catastrophe in one form or another, economic most likely. I'm not a doomsday person either....it's simple economics.
However, something I hugely disagree with many of you on.....why and when did it become "against the rules" to have a person of faith in office?? I would argue that 80-90% of our past presidents and the vast majority of our founding fathers were "men of faith." Not to over-simplify it, but the initial intent of the "seperation of church and state" was to prevent what we had fled in England, which was STATE RUN religion. Much of our foundation and beginnings were based on Biblical truths, Ten Commandments, etc. Our laws were built upon such things and as such you see Christian themes within our oldest national monuments, sites and buildings.
I guess all that to say, if the initial intent of our forefathers was to keep persons with a professed faith out of government, then 90% of themselves would have been excluded!! So logically, that was not the intent. I just can't see where it would be anywhere near reasonable, as a supporting requirement, that a candidate for the Presidency have no professed faith in anything. The majority of the world believes in a higher power which is clearly identified in many large religions.
Out of curiosity, what rights is Romney after?
Unfortunately, I'm more in the "lesser of two evils" camp.
I'll be voting for Romney. Normally I am completely ideal/principle driven, and would vote for an "unknown" that I believe in (Ron Paul or the like). However, I cannot allow my vote to not "count" in this election, when Obama is not only allowing, but is pushing for the fabric of this country to be torn apart. HUGE government is not the right thing, and is nothing that this country was founded or created for, quite the opposite!! We are eerily creeping toward's socialism or possibly worse, very fast with this administration and idealogy. Re-distribution of wealth with BIG government at the helm is a philosophy that we have fought, spilling American blood to defend against. AKA, socialism, communism, fascism.The disenfranchised in this country are hands down the middle class. The welfare/hand-out/entitlement population is exponentially growing and sapping this country of all it was built on and all of it's resources. There is absolutely a breaking point upon which the middle class/working America will not be able to support all the BIG government welfare. I see it first hand everyday, the waves of people that are completely content and more than willing to live off the middle class when they can sit around and collect all the handouts in the world. Add to that the enormous bills that are created within the healthcare system by those same people...HELL, I'm starting to wonder why I work?!?
There is definitively a breaking point at which the increased taxation, that is completely inevitable to maintain these "welfare" levels, will break the middle-classes back. I completely agree with Mike (majicmike) that in 3-6 years we are going to see catastrophe in one form or another, economic most likely. I'm not a doomsday person either....it's simple economics.However, something I hugely disagree with many of you on.....why and when did it become "against the rules" to have a person of faith in office?? I would argue that 80-90% of our past presidents and the vast majority of our founding fathers were "men of faith." Not to over-simplify it, but the initial intent of the "seperation of church and state" was to prevent what we had fled in England, which was STATE RUN religion. Much of our foundation and beginnings were based on Biblical truths, Ten Commandments, etc. Our laws were built upon such things and as such you see Christian themes within our oldest national monuments, sites and buildings.
I guess all that to say, if the initial intent of our forefathers was to keep persons with a professed faith out of government, then 90% of themselves would have been excluded!! So logically, that was not the intent.
I just can't see where it would be anywhere near reasonable, as a supporting requirement, that a candidate for the Presidency have no professed faith in anything. The majority of the world believes in a higher power which is clearly identified in many large religions.Out of curiosity, what rights is Romney after?
Wow, Shelby!! I don't think I could have said it better!! That is why I am also leaning towards Romney.
I have no problem with a religious man being in office, my problem is when they start drafting bills and amendments based on what THEY believe. Well, I had typed up a really long rant, but decided against it... That's a whole different debate
I have no problem with a religious man being in office, my problem is when they start drafting bills and amendments based on what THEY believe. Well, I had typed up a really long rant, but decided against it... That's a whole different debate